coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Balakhna, a town in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.
5.  On 29 July 2003 the Polyarnozorinskiy District Court of the Murmansk Region relied on the Law on State Pensions and ordered a pension authority to recalculate the applicant’s pension and to pay arrears. This judgment became binding on 27 August 2003, but was not enforced.
6.  On 23 October 2003 a bailiff attached the authority’s accounts. The authority applied for a judicial review of the attachment order. On 28 October 2003 the bailiff stayed the enforcement proceedings for ten days pending the judicial review. Later, the bailiff stayed the proceedings four more times: on 11, 20, and 30 November, and 10 December 2003. On 18 December 2003 the District Court approved the attachment order, but since the authority had appealed against this decision, the enforcement was stayed pending the appeal, i.e. until 10 March 2004.
7.  The applicant was absent from the hearing of 18 December 2003. According to the court, the applicant had asked for the hearing to be held in his absence. According to the applicant, he had never been invited.
8.  In separate proceedings, on 29 January 2004 the Constitutional Court gave its own interpretation of the Law on State Pensions.
9.  The pension authority considered that this interpretation superseded the interpretation given by the District Court, and on this ground asked it to reconsider the case due to newly-discovered circumstances. On 17 November 2004 the District Court granted this request, rejected the applicant’s claim against the pension authority, and terminated the enforcement proceedings.
4.  The applicants are a family. They were born in 1985, 1964, and 1944 respectively and live in Baltiysk, a town in the Kaliningrad Region.
5.  The applicants’ house became decrepit because of a construction undertaken nearby by Military Unit 53110. On 19 September 2001 the Baltiysk Town Court ordered the Military Unit to provide the applicants with decent dwellings. This judgment became binding on 1 October 2001.
6.  On 30 January 2002 the Town Court forwarded enforcement papers to bailiffs, but on 18 February 2002 the bailiffs returned the papers because of their formal defects.
7.  From 25 March to 30 May 2002 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the Military Unit contested its liability for the judgment debt.
8.  On 31 July 2002 the bailiffs returned the enforcement papers to the applicants because the judgment had been unclear.
9.  On 13 August 2004 the applicants applied to clarify the judgment, and on 26 August 2004 the Town Court issued a clarification. The applicants disagreed with it and appealed. After a rehearing, on 26 November 2004 the Town Court ordered the Military Unit to
“provide [the applicants] before 1 February 2005 with a decent (in terms of Baltiysk) flat in Baltiysk, measuring at least 47.2 m² and meeting sanitary and technical requirements.”
The applicants appealed, but on 12 January 2005 the Kaliningrad Regional Court rejected the appeal.
10.  On 28 February 2006 the first and second applicants received a flat of 52.8 m² and the third applicant received a flat of 34.1 m².
4.  The applicant was born in 1908 and lived in Sebeş.
5.  In 1950, a house and 1,460 sq. m of appurtenant land situated in Cluj-Napoca, Calea Turzii no. 26, the property of the applicant’s parents, were seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.
6.  On 24 July 1996 the applicant claimed compensation for the property under Law no. 112/1995. She states that she has not received any compensation.
7.  On an unknown date the property was divided into several parts. It appears from the documents in the file that the property, made up of two constructions and appurtenant land, was divided into five apartments and two plots of appurtenant land of 1,058 sq. m and 116 sq. m respectively.
8.  On 31 October, 15 November and 10 December 1996, and 3 February and 27 March 1997 the State sold the five apartments to the then tenants. It appears from the file that the two plots of appurtenant land were not made the object of a sale.
9.  On 3 March 2000 the Cluj Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed the applicant’s action for annulment of the State’s title to property, acknowledged that the nationalisation of the building and of the 1,460 sq. m of land appurtenant to it had been unlawful and ordered restoration in the name of the applicant’s parents.
10.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant requested the court to find that the sales by the State on 10 December 1996 and 3 February 1997 of apartments nos. 1 and 2 respectively, situated on Calea Turzii no. 28, were null and void. According to the applicant, she did not request the annulment of the sale of the other apartments, considering the action pointless in so far as the constant practice was to dismiss this kind of action.
On 4 September and on 27 November 2002 respectively the Cluj Court of Appeal by final decisions dismissed the two actions by the applicant to declare null and void the sales by the State. The court considered that the sales had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that the former tenants had made the purchase in good faith.
11.  On 2 August 2001 the applicant made two different requests under the Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State, seeking restitution in kind or compensation of the parts of her property situated in Cluj, Calea Turzii nos. 26 and 28 and of the appurtenant land.
12.  On 12 June 2007 the Cluj-Napoca Town Council, by two decisions, proposed that the applicant be given compensation under Law no. 247/2005. The Town Council mentioned that the apartments and the land claimed in kind were in the possession of third parties.
So far, she has not received any compensation.
5.  By a decision of 25 August 1995 the Social Insurance Authority in Kraków awarded a pension to the applicant. It was to be paid to him for a period beginning on 1 May 1993.
6.  Under the applicable provisions of domestic law, the Military Pensions Office was competent to make payments to the applicant, but it failed to do so. In a letter to the Office dated 16 October 1995, the Director of the Social Insurance Authority confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to a military pension.
7.  As the Military Pensions Office still refused to make payments, apparently considering that the 1995 decision was not in conformity with the law, the applicant lodged an action with the Kraków Regional Court on 8 November 1995, complaining about the Office’s failure to pay. In its pleadings, the Office argued that the decision had been given in breach of substantive provisions of the applicable social insurance laws. It further indicated that it had informed the Social Insurance Authority about its doubts as to the lawfulness of the decision. Subsequently, the Authority had summoned the applicant to undergo an additional medical examination. As the applicant had failed to comply with the summons, payment of a part of his pension had been stayed with effect from 1 May 1996.
8.  By a judgment of 4 March 1999 the court allowed the applicant’s action. It ordered the Military Pensions Office to pay the amount of pension due for the period from 1 May 1993 to 1 May 1996. It noted the decision staying payment of the applicant’s pension. However, it stressed that the decision given on 25 August 1995 had not been appealed against and, as a result, had become final. The Office was therefore bound by it. There were no grounds for not paying the applicant the amounts due for the years 1993‑1996. The court was not competent to re‑examine the lawfulness of the 1995 decision in the proceedings before it.
9.  The Military Pensions Office appealed. It reiterated that, in its view, the 1995 decision had not been in compliance with the substantive law.
10.  On 28 November 2000 the Kraków Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding that the first-instance court had correctly found that it had not been empowered to re-examine the lawfulness of the 1995 decision. It further reiterated that this decision had to be complied with by the Office.
11.  On 29 November 2000 the applicant reiterated his request to have the amounts due paid to him, but to no avail. Subsequently, the Military Pensions Office lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court.
12.  On 1 and 22 March 2001 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Defence and to the Prime Minister about the Office’s failure to pay him the pension.
13.  By a decision of 16 May 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the Office, finding that it had failed to comply with the relevant procedural requirements.
14.  In December 2002 the Military Pensions Office paid the applicant the amounts in arrears together with statutory interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 16 September 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody for his suspected involvement in terrorist activities. Subsequently, he was remanded in custody until 6 April 1984, when, in the course of the criminal proceedings brought against him, he was released. On 15 May 1990 he was acquitted of all charges. The applicant submits that since this decision was not duly notified to him, he learned of his acquittal only in 1996.
6.  On 24 May 1996 the applicant applied to the Diyarbakır Assize Court, seeking compensation pursuant to Law no. 466. That Law provides, inter alia, for an award of damages to any person who has been unlawfully deprived of his or her liberty, or who, after being lawfully detained, was not subsequently committed for trial or was acquitted after standing trial. The applicant claimed 20,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 256,706 US Dollars) for non‑pecuniary damage.
7.  On 27 February 1998 the first-instance court awarded a certain amount of compensation. The Court of Cassation quashed that ruling on 30 December 1998 and remitted the file to the Diyarbakır Assize Court for a more comprehensive examination.
8.  On 16 June 1999 the assize court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant had failed to respect the statutory time-limit. This judgment was also quashed by the Court of Cassation on 2 May 2000.
9.  On 4 October 2000 the first-instance court handed down its third ruling where it awarded a certain amount of compensation. On 27 March 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment on the ground that the amount awarded was too low.
10.  On 6 September 2001 the assize court awarded the applicant TRL 3,000,000,000 (approximately EUR 2,400) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
11.  On 5 March 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
12.  In the course of the proceedings the assize court held investigatory sittings on a regular basis. Only on four occasions did it decide to notify the applicant’s lawyer of the date of its next session (30 April 1997, 10 February 1999, 1 June 2000 and 6 June 2001). However, no session was postponed on account of the applicant’s lawyer’s failure to attend.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Ryazan.
6.  He is currently a military serviceman.
7.  From 13 May 2000 to 5 May 2001 the applicant served in the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Kosovo.
8.  Upon his return to Russia, he brought proceedings against the head of his military unit for his daily allowance in relation to his service abroad.
9.  On 14 April 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison ordered the military unit to pay the applicant 371,543.84 Russian roubles in respect of his daily allowance.
10.  The military unit did not lodge an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day time-limit and on 25 April 2003 the judgment became binding and enforceable. The enforcement proceedings started.
11.  However, on 25 August 2003 the military unit applied for a supervisory review of the judgment.
12.  On 5 November 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command quashed the judgment of 14 April 2003 by way of supervisory review, re-examined the claim and dismissed it in full. The reason given for the quashing of the judgment was the “wrongful application of substantive law by the first-instance court”.
4.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1951 respectively and live in Lysychansk, in the Lugansk region, Ukraine.
5.  At the material time they worked at the State Machinery and Repair Plant (ДВАТ «Ремонтно-механічний завод» – “the plant”). In 2004 they were dismissed. Before the domestic authorities they were represented by a lawyer, M.
6.  On 13 March 2000 the Lugansk Regional Court of Arbitration instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the plant.
7.  On 10 April 2001 the court commenced the procedure of financial rehabilitation of the plant and appointed a bankruptcy trustee responsible for that procedure. It is not clear from the materials submitted whether the rehabilitation procedure has ended or is still pending.
8.  On 12 October 2004 the Commercial Court of the Lugansk Region (the former Lugansk Regional Court of Arbitration) ordered the bankruptcy trustee to inform the creditors of the measures adopted in the course of the debtor’s rehabilitation and to provide them with financial documents concerning the payment of salary arrears. The applicants maintained that the trustee did not comply with this decision.
9.  By the decisions of 29 November 2004, 11 April and 6 June 2005 the Labour Disputes Commission and the Lysychansk Town Court awarded the first applicant salary arrears and other payments due to him from his former employer in the total amount of 13,539.56 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1].
10.  By the decisions of 29 November 2004, 5 April and 4 May 2005 the same authorities awarded the second applicant salary arrears and other payments due to him from his former employer in the total amount of UAH 6,281.11[2].
11.  Furthermore, in decisions of 5 and 11 April 2005 the Lysychansk Town Court, inter alia, ordered the applicants’ reinstatement.
12.  In so far as the above-mentioned decisions became final, the local department of the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.
13.  According to a letter of 6 September 2006 from the local department of the State Bailiffs’ Service, the parts of the decisions of 5 and 11 April 2005 relating to the applicants’ reinstatement were fully enforced and the relevant enforcement proceedings were terminated by decisions of the State Bailiffs’ Service of 17 April 2005. The applicants submitted that in fact they were not reinstated as they were still not admitted to their workplaces. They did not, however, inform the Court whether they had challenged before the domestic courts the decisions of 17 April 2005 to terminate the enforcement proceedings in question.
14.  The applicants requested the local prosecutor’s office to intervene in the enforcement proceedings and to institute criminal proceedings against the relevant persons, but apparently to no avail.
15.  The applicants maintained that these decisions remain unenforced.
4.  The applicant, Ms Valentina Grigoryevna Shapkina, is a Kazakh national who was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Berdyansk, Ukraine.
5.  On 7 August 1998, the Berdyansk Court convicted Ms K. and Ms L. of fraud and awarded the applicant 19,357 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)[1] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the applicant by these persons.
6.  As the judgment of 7 August 1998 had not been enforced by the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Бердянського міського управління юстиції Запорізької області), the applicant instituted proceedings against the latter in the Berdyansk Court. The applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to her by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment.
7.  On 19 December 2002 the court found in part for the applicant. By its judgment, the court ordered that the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service pay the applicant UAH 5,635.90[2] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the latter as a result of the Bailiffs’ failure to take all necessary enforcement actions during the relevant period.
8. Being dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation awarded to her, the applicant lodged an appeal against the above judgment. On 24 November 2003 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance court. On the same date the judgment of 19 December 2002 became final.
9.  On 19 January 2004 the applicant transferred the enforcement writ in respect of the judgment of 19 December 2002 to the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service. On 27 February 2004 the enforcement writ was transferred for enforcement to the Primorsky Bailiffs’ Service.
10.  On 5 April 2004 the latter instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19 December 2002.
11.  On 1 November 2005 the Primorsky Bailiffs’ Service suspended enforcement proceedings since the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service had no property that could be attached.
12.  The judgment of 19 December 2002 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the village of Rozdolne, the Crimea.
5.  On 4 July 2000 the applicant lodged complaint with the Rozdolne District Court against two private agricultural companies “Chernyshevsky” (C.) and “Prymorsky” (P.), seeking to recover salary arrears.
6.  The first hearing was fixed for 12 October 2000.
7.  Between October 2000 and October 2003 eight out of fifteen hearings were postponed due to the respondents’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court.
8.  In May 2001 the proceedings were suspended as the term of office of the presiding judge had expired.
9.  The proceedings were resumed in March 2003.
10.  On 7 October 2003 the applicant’s claims were allowed in full.
11.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 7 November 2003.
12.  The applicant was provided with a written copy of the judgment on 18 November 2003.
13.  In the course of 2004 the amount awarded to the applicant against C. was paid in full.
14.  The enforcement proceedings against P. were suspended on an unspecified date as the company was insolvent and this part of the judgment of 7 October 2003 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kokkola.
5.  On 4 September 1996 the applicant gave a directly enforceable guarantee to cover the debt of a limited liability company. The debt fell due on 31 March 1999 and was not paid.
6.  On 30 June 1999 the creditor bank initiated civil proceedings in the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) requesting the company and the applicant, along with other persons, to pay the debt.
7.  On 8 February 2000 the District Court asked the defendants to indicate clearly in writing whether or not they contested the claim, at the risk of a default judgment. The applicant and the company filed their statements of reply on 15 and 20 March 2000 respectively but failed to indicate clearly their position.
8.  On 21 March 2000 the District Court gave a default judgment in which it ordered the applicant and the company to pay the debt. The judgment was served on 9 May 2000.
9.  On 12 May 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against the default judgment with the District Court requesting that the judgment be quashed and the claims of the creditor bank be rejected.
10.  On 15 June 2000 the District Court ordered a stay of execution of the judgment.
11.  The District Court proceedings comprised three different sets of civil proceedings which were joined on 7 May 2003. These were the applicant’s claim for refund of benefit by unjust enrichment, the appeal against the default judgment and an action for damages, which was subsequently withdrawn.
12.  On 6 February 2004 the court, after having held oral hearings in October and December 2003, quashed the default judgment and rejected the creditor bank’s claims as far as the applicant was concerned.
13.  In March 2004 all parties to the case appealed to the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten). The applicant’s appeal only concerned costs and expenses. The Appeal Court held an oral hearing in February 2006. On 4 April 2006 it upheld the District Court’s judgment as far as the applicant was concerned.
14.  The applicant did not apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) as he was no longer in need of legal protection. Consequently, the Appeal Court judgment became final on 6 June 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chişinău.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant worked as a journalist for the national public audio-visual institution, Teleradio-Moldova company (T.). According to the applicant, on 27 July 2004 a spontaneous strike began amongst T.’s staff in response to alleged censorship and disrespect for democratic principles enforced within T. by the Communist Party. The applicant was among a group of staff who occupied a room and refused to vacate it until their demands were met. According to the Government, this was an unauthorised demonstration.
8.  On 23 September 2004 the applicant, who was present in court, was found guilty of breaching Article 174/1 § 4 of the Code of Administrative Offences by actively participating in an unauthorised demonstration. She was fined 180 Moldovan lei (MDL) (12 euros (EUR) at the time).
9.  The applicant appealed, claiming that there was no evidence of her active participation in the meeting and that the meeting had been an unplanned strike which should be examined under the relevant labour legislation.
10.  On 7 October 2004 the applicant was dismissed from her position. She remains unemployed, having formally registered as such on 8 January 2005.
11.  On 18 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal examined her case in her absence and rejected her appeal in cassation. The court noted that the applicant had been summoned. According to the applicant, she had not been summoned and found out about the decision of the Court of Appeal only on 6 January 2005 when she inquired about her case at the court’s registry.
12.  The applicant paid her fine on 11 January 2005.
4.  The applicant company is registered in Dnipropetrovs’k.
5.  On 22 August 2001 the applicant company lodged a claim with the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court against the Commercial Bank P. (“the Bank”) seeking compensation for damages because of the latter’s failure to withdraw a sum of money from the account of a third party, S., in the framework of enforcement proceedings against S.
6.  By decision of 13 September 2001, the court found against the applicant company. On 6 November 2001 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant company and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
7.  By decision of 18 February 2002, the Higher Commercial Court, on the applicant company’s appeal, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and found for the applicant company.
8.  On 4 June 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, upon appeal by the Bank, quashed the resolution of the Higher Commercial Court on the ground that that court’s findings had been unfounded and erroneous, and upheld the decisions of the first-instance and the appellate courts.